Although the eight-torsion bar suspension was axed, the production 2CV’s suspension was just as capable, if not more so. The super-long travel and ultra soft springing remained, but was now accomplished by two sets of coils springs mounted in cylinders horizontally alongside the platform chassis, and connected to the individually-suspended front and rear wheels via bellcranks and pull rods. That alone would have made a very advanced system.

But there’s more: the cylinders in which the coils travel is not fixed, but have springs of their own, which allows them to move, thereby creating the first (I believe) active suspension. When the front wheel hits a bump it compresses its spring, but also moves the cylinder forward some, which in turn pre-loads the rear spring. This tends to both keep the 2CV level, despite its ridiculously soft springs, and is effective in controlling front-aft pitching.

The suspension is not interconnected side-to-side, which does mean the 2CV tends to really lean in corners. And it’s ridiculously easy to rock back and forth sideways, as we used to delight in doing as kids whenever we saw one parked on the street. We just couldn’t believe how soft it was, and how wildly we could rock one.

Amazingly as it may seem, 2CVs do not tip readily, despite their wild angles in hard cornering. Thanks to a super-low center of gravity, and none of the abrupt transitions that rear-engined and swing-axled cars like the VW and Corvair exhibited, the front-wheel drive 2CV just hangs in there, and its wheels hang down there, as if glued to the pavement. The fact that the 2CV helped pioneer Michelin’s new steel-belted tires only added to its grip. Like so many exotic things French, one has to experience a 2CV to appreciate it properly. It’s an acquired taste, for most.

Speaking of, another brilliant aspect to the 2CV is its four doors and room for four adults and a decent trunk. This really sets it apart from all the little micro-cars that were all the rage right after the war (and some well before it); most were little more than motorized sidewalk toys. The 2CV was a tall boy, a CUV a half-century ahead of the times. And erstwhile Chrysler President K T Keller would have been proud of the 2CV’s “father” Pierre-Jules Boulanger, who insisted that its roof be raised because he liked to drive with his hat on.

And more brilliance inside: the 2CV prototype’s seats were truly hammocks, suspended from the ceiling. BTW, this and so many other aspects of the 2CV’s design was all about weight (and cost) saving. The TPV was planned to be built mostly out of aluminum, but the rising cost of that metal forced a change to steel, and innovative ways to still keep weight down, like the “corrugated” body panels on early versions. The efforts paid off: the 2CV weighs in at around 1200 lbs (560 kg), a phenomenally low weight, given its roominess.

The production version used “lawn-chair” type seats, with easily replaceable cushions available for $29.95 at every WalMarché in France.

Here’s how they look in our featured car, which is legally registered as a 1969 model, but looks (mostly, at least) to be more modern than that; probably from the eighties or so, and imported from Belgium.

Now that’s an instrument panel I can get behind. No touch screens, but plenty to touch.

A special version of the 2CV was the Sahara for very difficult off-road driving, built from December 1960-1971. This had an extra engine mounted in the rear compartment and both front- and rear-wheel traction. Only 694 Saharas were built. The target markets for this car were French oil companies, the military, and the police.

Built in boost gauge in the dash. One of my friends at the time saw that turbo was on theoretical empty and asked if we needed to stop and get more turbo. I gave it gas and he was like wait, its full now. Had to quickly explain the process.

Originally Posted by Calcvictim

so basically the OP has no clue about anything and just posts out of his ass?

I dragged her back to see the $4,500 Pacer. She hated it, but we bought it. She went home and cried. (when we sold it) my wife put an ad in the newspaper. A woman came out to look at the car. She said, "I really didn't go out looking for a Pacer." My wife replied, "Lady, nobody goes out looking for a Pacer. It's eighteen hundred bucks, take it or leave it!" The woman took it and drove away smiling. My wife cried.

It's not hard to tell when a driver is texting. If I can do it while driving a manual, eating a cheeseburger AND loading a shotgun... the average driver, who is admittedly much smarter, and more coordinated than me, should be capable of seeing it too.

“I wasn't trying to wreck him, I just wanted to rattle his cage.”... Dale Earnhardt

Originally Posted by porridgehead

It's all about the tires. I drove my M3 in the snow. With the summer tires on, it was the safest car in the world in the snow. In fact, it was a statue. You could not make it move with half an inch of snow on the ground.

I drive a rental car, I don't know what's going on with it, right? So a lot of times I'll drive for like 10 miles with the emergency brake on. That doesn't say a lot for me, but it really doesn't say a lot for the emergency brake.

Originally Posted by Robstr

How hard is that to understand without getting your panties in a bunch?
Surely some of you guys managed to make it out of middle school.

Seems like these would be at their best on a farm or off-road. Great suspension travel.

Daily driving? Yikes. (unless you were on easy secondary roads and not in a hurry)

Hang a tractor warning sign off the back.

The original prototype 1941

Originally Posted by David Votoupal

The car sucked in every way imaginable, that it entered the annals as one of the worst cars ever built. It was shoddily built in a plant where labour relations were atrocious. It rusted like hell, and the aluminium engine had the durability of a soggy potato chip. Few cars could have been so thoroughly bad Despite the "explosion" controversy, the Ford Pinto compared favourably to the Vega, and that's saying something.

The car sucked in every way imaginable, that it entered the annals as one of the worst cars ever built. It was shoddily built in a plant where labour relations were atrocious. It rusted like hell, and the aluminium engine had the durability of a soggy potato chip. Few cars could have been so thoroughly bad Despite the "explosion" controversy, the Ford Pinto compared favourably to the Vega, and that's saying something.

It's not hard to tell when a driver is texting. If I can do it while driving a manual, eating a cheeseburger AND loading a shotgun... the average driver, who is admittedly much smarter, and more coordinated than me, should be capable of seeing it too.

It's like the prototype came out of the design studio and someone said, "Christ on a crutch, this is what our design team came up with?? A Camry???" And the front and rear fascia team said, "Not for long!"

I daily drive a Fiat 126 with 26hp and I've been overtaken by a 2CV on a twisty b-road. Ok, that thing hat what looked like 185 width tyres, and it was sitting low, but it was friggin'awesome The 4 cylinder air-cooled boxer engine out of the Citroen GS fits with some mods. The car is so pure genious it hurts...

I'd say go for it. In germany there are stainless steel chassis available for less than 1000€. I don't know how traffic is in the US, but as Mr. Air and Water said, if you know the highway is empty I wouldn't mind. I have never had problems with my Fiat; the opposite is the case, people overtaking me (or being overtaken) can't help but smile Ok, in case of a crash chances to survive will be bad, but it's so much fun. And usually with such a car you drive very defensive and attentive. At least that's what happened to me.

I really don't think anyone thinks that these things are at all safe. And I mean, no offense, but with two old cars yourself, why would you say something like that?

No offense taken. And yes, my cars certainly aren't "safe" in a crash. But there is at least SOME difference between my 2200 pound 510 and this 1200 pound featherweight.

Eh... the 1700 pound Rabbit? Not so much. But I think the comment is a reasonable one for all the small early cars.

And I was piggybacking on the following comment on page one:

Originally Posted by chrismkay3

for a main driver wouldn't you want to consider safety, even slightly. a 2CV will probably use your torso for a crumple zone in a crash. maybe have one for sunday morning drives when traffic is light, but not for an every day driver...

Nice overview of the 2CV:

The 2cv is probably just as relevant today as it was when Pierre Boulanger laid out the criteria for the 2cv in 1936. It must be a simple design, capable of driving thirty MPH across plowed fields with a cargo of eggs. It must be able to carry five passengers and of course be comfortable.

The original concept was for an umbrella on wheels and to keep the expense down, must be built with a minimum of materials. For cheap operation it meant a small engine and of course that would mean it had to be very lightweight.

Last edited by Barefoot_; 10-08-2012 at 03:41 PM.

Originally Posted by Surf Green

It's not hard to tell when a driver is texting. If I can do it while driving a manual, eating a cheeseburger AND loading a shotgun... the average driver, who is admittedly much smarter, and more coordinated than me, should be capable of seeing it too.

Just don't take anyone with you when there are steep road. Depending on the inclination, you'll end up pushing the car or crawling up the hill while your passengers go on foot (this happened with a 435cc 2CV 4).

The silver one in Hand Cannon's post would be great and has all the early details I like. For the OP, beware that many 2CVs in the US are fraudulently registered as something they are not. THere are many Charlestons, (made in 90 or 91) that show up with 60s and 70s as their year. DOT problem and maybe a long term headache for a buyer. Just because it isn't a Skyline doesn't mean that you don't have to worry about it.